Unlike Microsoft, who had the will and executive ability to expand to new territories and destroy competitors, Google has a remarkable record of half-baked works and giving up. it's a joke.

Google has, very successfully I would argue, expanded into mobile. They bought a mobile OS and turned it into the global market leader. This is the biggest change in consumer technology since the web and they did not miss it.

There is a very serious benefit to recognizing a losing hand and folding before you're in too deep. You see a weakness in Google's execution, and I'd agree in some places, but there is some wisdom in closing up failed experiments rather than doubling down as Microsoft has done with several of their investments in the past.

I have zero problem with the fail-fast, fail-earlier strategy and attitude. ultimately it's business. there is no point to continue if it's obviously not going to work. there is a catch though: do fail because of innovation (crazy, big ideas). I'd argue all these experiments, except gmail/map/wave, have 0 substance. most of them are crappy implemented, poor planed cat projects.

"had the will and executive ability to expand to new territories and destroy competitors"

That didn't happen in mobile. In fact iOS and Android made Microsoft's mobile efforts look silly.

They have been for a long time now. Apps are commonly written in Java, Javascript, scripting in lua, python, etc. The only thing they don't allow is executable pages of memory, which the Go previously required due to it's runtime.

Apple has been accepting apps in all kinds of languages for years, including: Lua, C#, Racket, JS+native wrappers, Java, C, C++, Ruby, Python, etc.

Their current guidelines only prohibit dynamic code download (that is: installable plugins from outside the App Store):

3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework.

Aren't they already approving apps written in C#? What's different about Go?

They've been doing that for ages already.

Please do at least a cursory bit of research before commenting about an area you're clearly not familiar with! It will save a lot of time, and prevent FUD like this from continuing to spread.

Well, I'm glad he asked, because I didn't know all these languages mentioned in the responses, were supported on iOS and the App Store.

I totally agree with the article except one thing: it's much much more a pleasant experience to code iOS app than Android, even without considering the fragmentation problem.

+1.

I love that the android store does not make you wait.

Having said that, I hate Android Studio, and Eclipse, and I hate the android simulator too.

It makes the development process slower, feels clunky.

To each their own, of course.

Luckily Peter Bright does not quit covering MS/web/programming yet.

Well, consider that Silex and Slim have been out for a while already and no, not really. I think it's about having options more than anything else at this point

it's a dumb only because it failed. will you do it again if the conversion/reply rate was good?

If I were you, i'll probably setup a competition project repo, invite folks to contribute, only do the sales pitch after they are hooked.

who was the last business leader in tech sector close to politics? john scully?

Well done! I hope Google would do the same when related to NSA and other 3 letters agencies.

when was the last time Google made headline of hn for its technology?

absolutely! In general I trust pure commercial organisations more than govt. and non-profit orgs.

according to my understanding, there is no "fact" in science. there are observations, hypotheses (and null hypotheses if related to stats) and theories. i think "fact" is used in the article as theories or hypotheses that explain corresponding observations well enough, and over and over again.

Observation, if verified that it's done correctly, is a fact. Evolution is actually observed, so it's a fact.